Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf • Hacker News Board

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#61

Post by st3v3r » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 10:42 PM UTC

f0code wrote: post #45

parenthephobia wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're moving the goalposts. Donglegate isn't about conference staff having a quiet word with people in private. It's about one person getting fired for offending another, and that person eventually getting fired because of community lacklash. If all that had happened was that somebody got offended, privately told a staff member, and then the person causing offence had been privately spoken to - which is what the PyC…

No, I'm not. If anything, you're splitting hairs. Your assertion was "You will need to remain silent if you bully, harrass, intimidate, stalk, stereotype, or belittle." The guys in donglegate did none of those things, and yet they were in fact reported to staff. Over private words. My point is that you never know what is going to offend someone. This CoC says that you agree to be removed from the premises if someone…

One could argue that the guys in Donglegate did belittle and sterotype based on their tasteless jokes.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#62

Post by hythloday » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 10:46 PM UTC

AKrumbach wrote: post #41

If your conference will dis-invite / "de-platform" people based on their opinion about topic {foo}, you are in fact hosting a conference about {foo} , regardless of what your name, official agenda, or spokespeople say. Kudos to LambdaConf for actually keeping on focus in the face of dissent.

Well, this works the other way around too, right? If you invite, or accept applications from, someone who is primarily noted for {bar}, then whatever your name, official agenda, or spokespeople say, you are now hosting a conference tolerant or supportive of {bar}.

You seem to be making a declaration that acts are inherently political, and I'm all for that. It's just that the standard works both ways.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#63

Post by theorique » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 10:46 PM UTC

Good job LambdaConf.

Disregarding irrelevant political views and focusing on the technical content is what every conference should do. It's too bad that this is less common than it should be.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#64

Post by peteretep » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 10:47 PM UTC

zorpner wrote: post #57

lhnz wrote: post #50

I think "conduct vs beliefs" is the right metaphor by which to make these sorts of decisions. After all, we talk about a 'Code of Conduct' and not a 'Code of Belief' (the latter, in my opinion, would edge too close towards totalitarianism.) As long as Curtis stays professional and speaks only on Urbit [0] he is doing the right thing and should be allowed to speak. [0] http://urbit.org/

At what point does someone's routine vocal endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of violence become problematic? Or are we obligated to welcome these people into our conferences (workplaces? homes?) so long as they confine their exhortations to speech and only work to encourage others to perform the actual violence? The idea of a "Code of Belief" is a strawman -- the issue at hand is the expectation not of…

    > At what point does someone's routine vocal
    > endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of
    > violence become problematic?

The Americans have a whole load of case law around First Amendment rights, it would be worth familiarizing yourself with that for a few hundred years worth of considered thought.

    > Or are we obligated to welcome these people into
    > our conferences

Well in this case, their conferences - he's there under his own technical merit, isn't he? Do you really get to exclude him because you don't like his views, even though he may well be more qualified than you to claim a right to be there?

    > (workplaces?

Conveniently there's case law in employment too.

    > homes?)

Weird strawman.

    > the issue at hand is the expectation not of freedom of
    > thought or freedom of speech, but a desire for speech
    > without consequences

I would be curious to know what you think free speech means, if it doesn't mean speech without consequence. "We're free speech in this country, except you can go to jail for saying the wrong thing".

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#65

Post by EdHominem » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 10:51 PM UTC

st3v3r wrote: post #59

EdHominem wrote: post #29

> In the end, we all converged on the same opinion: that LambdaConf should focus on the behavior of attendees, rather than their belief systems. And that wasn't the starting point? What a joke! > We would never allow a violent criminal to attend LambdaConf. Yes, you would. You'd be sued if you didn't. They did their time and (presumably) got out or the question would be moot. If they (or anyone else) threatened someo…

Ok, but that's not everything. What about talks with sexist content? Remember the "Perform like a porn star" talk ( http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2009/04/25/why-rails-is-still-a... )? The person giving the talk might not be actively harassing someone, but they're clearly making the conference a place where women do not feel welcome.

That's the content they choose to sponsor (with a soapbox), and which they should curate.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#66

Post by 13thLetter » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 10:57 PM UTC

zorpner wrote: post #57

lhnz wrote: post #50

I think "conduct vs beliefs" is the right metaphor by which to make these sorts of decisions. After all, we talk about a 'Code of Conduct' and not a 'Code of Belief' (the latter, in my opinion, would edge too close towards totalitarianism.) As long as Curtis stays professional and speaks only on Urbit [0] he is doing the right thing and should be allowed to speak. [0] http://urbit.org/

At what point does someone's routine vocal endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of violence become problematic? Or are we obligated to welcome these people into our conferences (workplaces? homes?) so long as they confine their exhortations to speech and only work to encourage others to perform the actual violence? The idea of a "Code of Belief" is a strawman -- the issue at hand is the expectation not of…

> At what point does someone's routine vocal endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of violence become problematic?

As long as the person does all that on their own time and is professional and respectful in the work context? Never.

Any other questions?

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#67

Post by parenthephobia » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 11:04 PM UTC

f0code wrote: post #45

parenthephobia wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're moving the goalposts. Donglegate isn't about conference staff having a quiet word with people in private. It's about one person getting fired for offending another, and that person eventually getting fired because of community lacklash. If all that had happened was that somebody got offended, privately told a staff member, and then the person causing offence had been privately spoken to - which is what the PyC…

No, I'm not. If anything, you're splitting hairs. Your assertion was "You will need to remain silent if you bully, harrass, intimidate, stalk, stereotype, or belittle." The guys in donglegate did none of those things, and yet they were in fact reported to staff. Over private words. My point is that you never know what is going to offend someone. This CoC says that you agree to be removed from the premises if someone…

(That was a different poster's assertion.)

The code actually says that you agree to be removed if you "wantonly behave in a manner inconsistent with" it, and only one of the paragraphs mentioned minorities: they chose to lead with a general requirement to treat others with respect, dignity and empathy, regardless of who they are.

This is not a code of conduct designed to punish accidental "thought crime" against minorities: it is designed to prevent intentionally or recklessly offensive behaviour towards any and all conference attendees.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#68

Post by zorpner » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 11:24 PM UTC

peteretep wrote: post #64

zorpner wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point does someone's routine vocal endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of violence become problematic? Or are we obligated to welcome these people into our conferences (workplaces? homes?) so long as they confine their exhortations to speech and only work to encourage others to perform the actual violence? The idea of a "Code of Belief" is a strawman -- the issue at hand is the expectation not of…

> At what point does someone's routine vocal > endorsement of racial superiority and advocation of > violence become problematic? The Americans have a whole load of case law around First Amendment rights, it would be worth familiarizing yourself with that for a few hundred years worth of considered thought. > Or are we obligated to welcome these people into > our conferences Well in this case, their conferences - he'…

You have no understanding of the first amendment. It applies, of course, only to the government's response to speech.

I would be curious to know what you think free speech means, if it doesn't mean speech without consequence.

You can say anything you want, and the government won't intervene. That's all free speech means. Other people, groups, and corporations are free to judge you, criticize you, exclude you from their platforms and private events, organize boycotts against you, criticize people who agree with you, criticize people who choose not to exclude you, and so forth. You may dislike that they do those things, but they are free to do so without government interference, because of free speech.

You, in turn, are free to criticize and exclude them in a similar manner. This is dialogue, and a desire to promulgate your opinions but have others not promulgate their opinions (including when they're about you) is the height of hypocrisy.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#69

Post by jmspring » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 11:39 PM UTC

The choice quote is here --

"In the end, we all converged on the same opinion: that LambdaConf should focus on the behavior of attendees, rather than their belief systems."

What you believe in, in everyday society, shouldn't matter either. It is how you treat others and if you do so with politeness and respect, you should expect the same in return.

Re: Wrestling With Inclusion at LambdaConf

#70

Post by EdHominem » Wed, Mar 23, 2016, 11:48 PM UTC

AKrumbach wrote: post #41

If your conference will dis-invite / "de-platform" people based on their opinion about topic {foo}, you are in fact hosting a conference about {foo} , regardless of what your name, official agenda, or spokespeople say. Kudos to LambdaConf for actually keeping on focus in the face of dissent.

Kudos are actually due to all the normal people, outside the echo-chamber. Who not only declined to participate in fear or politics but in many cases wrote movingly about the value of open access.